Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript reports the application of an ontology definition methodology to a 1H Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Relaxometry case. The application results are then discussed and interpreted.

 

The theme is interesting, possibly yielding benefits for material testing professionals, but does not insert into a topical research line.

 

Likewise, the research gap definition is still exiguous. Undoubtedly, the concept of ontology is finally gaining momentum in widespread engineering applications, but the need for this specific development has not been satisfactorily explained.

 

The introduction is generally of good quality and well written.

 

It is followed by a comprehensive, well written and informative background sub-chapter.

 

Research is a relatively light one. There is not so much substance, innovation and validation as in a typical research article.

 

On the other hand, conditions of reproducibility are provided, including data.

 

The discussion is relatively straightforward, and there are no impactful conclusions (in fact, there is no conclusions section).

 

Please consider revising your reference manager. Many “Error! Reference source not found” warnings are found. This sometimes occurs when uploading an MS Word manuscript on MDPI’s website.

 

In conclusion, I must say that this is an interesting and very well prepared and written manuscript depicting an application case, but it clearly falls short of a research endeavour.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Some technical problems only with references (line 462, 499 and other)

Author Response

Thank you for your review and sincere point of view.

Best regards,

the authors

Reviewer 3 Report

The article presents an interesting way to use methods for data integration that aim to lower the information barriers between actors
for NDT methods. However, the article requires a very major revision.
The article is inconsistent - it has a very large part of the introduction, description of the method, execution of the method and relatively little in terms of results and discussion. These proportions must be balanced or the purpose and presentation of the pilot studies should be changed. Additionally, in the introduction, the authors must emphasize the purpose of the article (research). It is not clearly highlighted what is new to this research and what has been carried over from that of other scientists.
Often the article contains a description of what will be done in this part of the article, what will come first, and what will be described in the remaining parts, it is redundant and makes the article illegible (the article should constitute a coherent whole).
In my opinion, the descriptions of the entire methods (section 3.1 and 3.2) are not necessary, you can refer to the literature, but only emphasize what is important in the case of using the new approach.
The content corresponding to these sections is not described in the following sections. In section 3.3. the description should be limited only to what has been used in this study, in section 3.4. to the results, in the section for the discussion of the results obtained and comparison with other scientists. No point of conclusions.
In this context, the presented results and discussion do not fulfill their role, as a result of which the work does not indicate the calibration of the model (no comparison) and is not readable for an ordinary recipient.

Due to the subject of the work, it may be worth reformulating the entire work to show these analyzes against other research results and to make them part of the study. Additionally, show how it is compared to other studies. Then the amount of content presented could be considered adequate.

Other minor comment:
"Error! Reference source not found ..." appears in the article several times, please correct it.
the drawings are unreadable and it is not known whether they are their own study or have been developed on some basis.
the descriptions under the pictures are too long, maybe some of the text can be transferred to the legend.

Author Response

See attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

thank you very much for your answer and revised manuscript. I accept the submitted explanations and manuscript.